High Court asks why Sur Chowdhury, Shah Alam not arrested

The High Court has raised questions as to why the former deputy governor of Bangladesh Bank, SK Sur Chowdhury, and the bank’s present executive director Shah Alam, are not being arrested.

Addressing the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) lawyer, the court questioned, “If you all do not take steps, orders will be issued if necessary. Why is nothing being done about them? If no preliminary evidence is found, release them. If found, definitely send them to jail. You can’t display your hospitality to a person facing allegations.”

These statements were made on Monday during the hearing of the virtual High Court bench of Justice Md Nazrul Islam Talukdar and Justice Mohi Uddin Shamim. This hearing was held regarding ACC’s steps against Prashanta Kumar (PK) Halder, accused of misappropriating and laundering around Tk 35 billion (Tk 3500 crore).

SK Sur Chowdhury and Shah Alam were in charge of private sector financial institutions. Both of them have been accused of taking unlawful benefits from the financial institution forcefully taken over by PK Halder. PK Halder remains fugitive. PK Halder’s associate and former managing director of International Leasing, Rashedul Huq, in his deposition given in court, said that every month Tk 200,000 would be paid to Shah Alam, who had been the general manager of Bangladesh Bank’s Department of Financial Institutions and Markets at the time, in order to conceal the irregularities of the financial institutions. And the central bank’s former deputy governor SK Sur Chowdhury would ‘manage’ of the irregularities and financial institutions.

During the hearing, the court questioned the ACC lawyer about what action had been taken regarding those whose names had appeared in the deposition. The ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan replied that many of those whose names appeared in the deposition had been arrested. Some are in jail, some are absconding.

On 18 November last year, a report appeared in a daily with the headlines ‘ACC to seek Interpol assistance to catch PK Halder.’ Based on this report, the High Court issued a ruling and asked the ACC chairman and plaintiffs to submit in writing what steps had been taken to bring PK Halder back to the country and to arrest him. The plaintiffs were also asked how PK Halder left the country despite his passport being seized and were told to submit by March 15 the names of those who have been on duty in the immigration and ACC at the time. Orders were also passed to submit details of all the officials who had been in service from 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2020 in three departments of Bangladesh Bank related to money laundering and financial institutions, including the internal audit and financial institution inspection division. The hearing on Monday was a continuation of this.

Lack of sincerity

During the hearing, the deputy attorney general said that at 3:38pm on 23 October 2019, PK Halder crossed the border at the Benapole land port and fled to India. On 22 October ACC had sent a letter to the immigration police, prohibiting him from leaving the country. On 23 October the immigration authorities informed all ports at 5:47pm about PK Halder. There were 59 members of the immigration police on duty at the Benapole land port at the time. They received the ACC letter after PK Halder fled.

The court asked when the Benapole land port received the orders prohibiting Halder to leave the country. The deputy attorney general replied, at 5:47pm. The court asked when the order had been issued. ACC lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan replied, “On 22 October 2019.” He said, “It was ACC which first identified PK Halder. His name arose when the 45 persons were named in the anti-casino drive.”

The court, addressing the ACC lawyer, said, “You issued the letter on 22 October to prohibit him from leaving the country. You could have arrested him before issuing the letter if you had wanted.” Khurshid Alam replied that till then no charges had been made against PK Halder. ACC submitted his name as a suspect. The court remarked that someone or the other, whether ACC or anyone else, certainly lacked sincerity. ACC was asked to submit a testimony in this regard and 6 April was fixed as the date for the next hearing.

Bangladesh Bank lawyer Tanjib-ul Alam then submitted a list of the names and details of the officials who had served in the three departments of Bangladesh Bank over the past 12 years. He was accompanied at the hearing by Khan Mohammad Shameem Aziz.

At the hearing, Tanjib-ul Alam said PK Halder had been involved with four financial institutions. He said that every year’s reports of the Bangladesh Bank’s concerned officials involved in the investigations, would have to be scrutinised. He appealed to the court for six to seven weeks to carry out the task. The court granted seven weeks for the purpose.